Subject: Re: [boost] [build] Headers rule does both too much and too little
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-02-18 16:27:52
On 02/18/2014 10:57 AM, Peter Dimov wrote:
> John Maddock wrote:
>> Too little:
>> The headers under boost/config/ are included via macros so aren't
>> placed in the dependency graph. I can fix this easily enough in the
>> Boost.Config tests, but ideally this should be fixed at the top level
>> by making everything under boost/config/ a dependency of
> You can fix that from your side - if you're so inclined - by including
> the omitted headers in an #if 0 block to enable the scanner to see them.
> Currently a number of tests seems to be failing due to a missing
> config/user.hpp, so it's a real problem. But there's also something else
> that is wrong with the headers, as other tests seem to be using older
> header versions, and that doesn't seem to be caused by a missed dependency.
Are the testers using incremental builds?
This shouldn't be happening in a full
test run, because the regression scripts
delete the header links and then re-create them.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk